A scenario simulation approach for sustainable mobility project evaluation based on fuzzy cognitive maps

References

• Centre for sustainable transportation. Definition and vision of sustainable transportation, 1998;1:1–16. Available from: https://www.uwinnipeg.ca/admin/vh_external/cst/documents/stme1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kosko B. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1986;24:65–75.10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2
   Google Scholar
• Papageorgiou EI, Groumpos PP. A new hybrid method using evolutionary algorithms to train fuzzy cognitive maps. Appl Soft Computing. 2005;5(4):409–431.10.1016/j.asoc.2004.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Omrani H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(10):12270–12280.10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hüging H, Glensor K, Lah O. Need for a holistic assessment of urban mobility measures–review of existing methods and design of a simplified approach. Transp Res Procedia, 2014;4:3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Bueno PC, Vassallo JM, Cheung K. Sustainability assessment of transport infrastructure projects: a review of existing tools and methods. Transp Rev. 2015;35(5):622–649.10.1080/01441647.2015.1041435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunreuther H, Grossi P, Seeber N, et al. A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. New York (NY): Columbia University; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Beinat E. Multi-criteria analysis for environmental management. J Multicriteria Decis Anal. 2001;10–51.
   Google Scholar
• Murry TJ, Pipino LL, Gigch JP. A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Syst Manage. 1985;5(1):76–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalkey NC, Helmer O. An experimental application method to the use of experts. Manage Sci. 1963;9(3):458–467.10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mereditha JR, Raturia A, Amoako-Gyampahb K, et al. Alternative research paradigms in operations. J Oper Manage. 1989;8(4):297–326.10.1016/0272-6963(89)90033-8
   Google Scholar
• Bueno S, Salmeron JL. Fuzzy modeling enterprise resource planning tool selection. Comput Stand Interfaces. 2008;30(3):137–147.10.1016/j.csi.2007.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo YF, Chen PC. Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Syst Appl. 2008;35:1930–1939.10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai H, Chang C, Lin H. Fuzzy hierarchy sensitive with Delphi method to evaluate hospital organization performance. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37(8):5533–5541.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin HY, Hsu PY, Sheen GJ. A fuzzy based decision making procedure for data warehouse system selection. Expert Syst Appl. 2007;32:939–953.10.1016/j.eswa.2006.01.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Z, Shao C, Ma S, et al. Constructing road safety performance indicators using Fuzzy Delphi Method and Grey Delphi Method. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38:1509–1514.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pai J. A fuzzy MCDM evaluation framework based on humanity oriented transport for transforming scheme of major arterial space in Taipei metropolitan. J Eastern Asia Soc Transp Stud. 2007;7:1731–1744.
   Google Scholar
• Kosko B. Fuzzy engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Xirogiannis G, Glykas M. Fuzzy cognitive maps in business analysis and performance-driven change. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2004;51(3):334–351.10.1109/TEM.2004.830861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheah WP, Kim YS, Kim KY, et al. Systematic causal knowledge acquisition using FCM Constructor for product design decision support. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38:15316–15331.10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiau T-A, Liu J-S. Developing an indicator system for local governments to evaluate transport sustainability strategies. Ecol Ind. 2013;34:361–371.10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno S, Salmeron JL. Benchmarking main activation functions in fuzzy cognitive maps. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36(3):5221–5229.10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirkhani A, Papageorgiou EI, Mohseni A, et al. A review of fuzzy cognitive maps in medicine: Taxonomy, methods, and applications. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017;142:129–145.10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.02.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özesmi U, Özesmi SL. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multistep fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Model. 2004;176:43–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif AM, Irani Z. Exploring fuzzy cognitive mapping for IS evaluation. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;173:1175–1187.10.1016/j.ejor.2005.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelen A. Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica. 2014;25(2):185–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathew M, Sahu S, Upadhyay AK. Effect of normalization techniques in robot selection using weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Int J Innovative Res Adv Stud. 2017;4(2):59–63.
   Google Scholar
• Tudela A, Akiki N, Cisternas R. Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: an application to urban transport investments. Transport Res Pol Pract. 2006;40:414–423.10.1016/j.tra.2005.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson J. A cost-benefit analysis of the Stockholm congestion charging system. Transp Res Policy Pract. 2009;43(4):468–480.10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damart S, Roy B. The uses of cost- benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France. Transp Policy. 2009;16:200–212.10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne D, Ryan L. Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2011;31:226–233.10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsamboulas D, Mikroudis G. EFECT – evaluation framework of environmental impacts and costs of transport initiatives. Transp Res D. 2000;5(4):283–303.10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00038-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ECMT – European Conference of Ministers of Transport. Assessment and Decision Making for Sustainable Transport. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Paris; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review, 405. 2nd ed. London: Prentice-Hall; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Tao CC, Hung CC. A comparative approach of the quantitative models for sustainable transportation. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud. 2003;5:3329–3344.
   Google Scholar
• Iniestra JG, Gutiérrez JG. Multicriteria decisions on interdependent infra-structure transportation projects using an evolutionary-based framework, 2009;9(2):512–526.
   Google Scholar
• Sayyadi R, Awasthi A. A simulation-based optimisation approach for identifying key determinants for sustainable transportation planning. Int J Syst Sci. Oper. & Logist. 2016;1–14. doi: 10.1080/23302674.2016.1244301.
   Google Scholar
• Maoh H, Kanaroglou P. A tool for evaluating urban sustainability via integrated transportation and land use simulation models. Urban Environ. 2009;3:28–46.
   Google Scholar
• Shafiei E, Stefansson H, Asgeirsson EI, et al. Integrated agent-based and system dynamics modelling for simulation of sustainable mobility. Transp Rev. 2013;33(1):44–70.10.1080/01441647.2012.745632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hivin LF. Sustainability of multimodal intercity transportation using a hybrid system dynamics and agent-based modeling approach, doctoral dissertation. 2014. Available from: https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53089
   Google Scholar
• Sayyadi R, Awasthi A. A system dynamics based simulation model to evaluate regulatory policies for sustainable transportation planning. Int J Model Simul. 2017;37(1):25–35.10.1080/02286203.2016.1219806
   Google Scholar
• Black JA, Paez A, Suthanaya PA. Sustainable urban transportation: perfor-mance indicators and some analytical approaches. J Urban Planning Dev. 2002;128:184–209.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2002)128:4(184)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudmundsson H. Sustainable mobility and indicator systems in transport policy. Malden: UNESCO, Blackwell Publishing; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Jeon CM, Amekudzi A. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: definitions, indicators, and metrics. J Infrastruct Syst. 2005;11:31–50.10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(31)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne D, O’Regan B, Moles R. Use of ecological footprinting to explore alternative policy scenarios in an Irish city-region. Transp Res. 2008;13:315–322.
   Google Scholar
• Litman T. A good example of bad transportation performance evaluation, Working Paper, Victoria Transport Policy Institute; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Haghshenas H, Vaziri M. Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecol Ind. 2012;15:115–121.10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima JP, da Silva Lima R, da Silva ANR. Evaluation and selection of alternatives for the promotion of sustainable urban mobility. Procedia Social Behav Sci. 2014;162:408–418.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.222
   Google Scholar
• Mohan D, Tiwari G. Sustainable transport systems: linkages between environmental issues, public transport, non-motorised transport and safety. Econ Political Weekly. 1999;34(25):1589–1596.
   Google Scholar
• Brand C, Mattarelli M, Moon D, et al. STEEDS: a strategic transport-energy environment decision support. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;139(2):416–435.10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00371-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yedla S, Shrestha R. Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transp Res A. 2003;37(8):717–729.
   Google Scholar
• Sayers TM, Jessop AT, Hills PJ. Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options – flexible, transparent and user-friendly? Transp Policy. 2003;10:95–105.10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00049-5
   Google Scholar
• Shang JS, Youxu T, Yizhong D. A UNIfiED FRAMEWORK FOR MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2004;51(3):300–313.10.1109/TEM.2004.830848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzeng G, Lin C, Opricovic S. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy. 2005;33(11):1373–1383.10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brey JJ, Contreras I, Carazo AF, et al. Evaluation of automobiles with alternative fuels utilizing multicriteria techniques. J Power Sources. 2007;169(1):213–219.10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.01.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS. A hybrid approach integrating Affinity Diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Appl Math Model. 2012;36(2):573–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Breuil D, Chauhan SS, et al. A multicriteria decision making approach for carsharing stations selection. J Decis Syst. 2007;16(1):57–78.10.3166/jds.16.57-78
   Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Hurteau X, et al. An analytical hierarchical process-based decision-making approach for selecting car-sharing stations in medium size agglomerations. Int J Inf Decis Sci. 2008;1(1):66–97.10.1504/IJIDS.2008.020049
   Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Breuil D. Sustainable mobility solutions: a pre-implementation questionnaire study for carsharing. Int J Serv Sci. 2009;2(3/4):242–264.10.1504/IJSSCI.2009.026541
   Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Goyal SK. A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Math Comput Model. 2011;53(1–2):98–109.10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.023
   Google Scholar
• Omrani H, Awasthi A, Ion L, et al. DeSSIA: approche hybride et outil d’aide à l’évaluation pour le projet SUCCESS [DeSSIA: A hybrid approach and decision aid tool for project SUCCESS]. Int J Inform Inter Intell. 2009;8(1):1–32. 
   Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Omrani H. A hybrid approach based on AHP and belief theory for evaluating sustainable transportation solutions. Int J Global Environ Issues. 2009;9(3):212–226.
   Google Scholar
• Campos Gouvêa VB, Rodrigues Ramos RA, de Miranda D, et al. Multi-criteria analysis procedure for sustainable mobility evaluation in urban areas. J Adv Transp. 2009;43(4):371–390.10.1002/(ISSN)2042-3195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turcksin L, Bernardini A, Macharis C. A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet. Social Behav Sci. 2011;20:954–965.10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.104
   Google Scholar
• Awasthi A, Chauhan SS. Using AHP and Dempster-Shafer theory for evaluating sustainable transport solutions. Environ Model Softw. 2011;26(6):787–796.10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickman R, Saxena S, Banister D, et al. Examining transport futures with scenario analysis and MCA. Transp Res A. 2012;46(3):560–575.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanović I, Grujičić D, Macura D, et al. One approach for road transport project selection. Transp Policy. 2013;25:22–29.10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones S, Tefe M, Appiah-Opoku S. Proposed framework for sustainability screening of urban transport projects in developing countries: a case study of Accra, Ghana. Transp Res A. 2013;49:21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez JC, Carrillo MH, Montoya-Torres JR. Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review. Ann Oper Res. 2014;226(1):69–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermote L, Macharis C, Hollevoet J, et al. Participatory evaluation of regional light rail scenarios: a Flemish case on sustainable mobility and land-use. Environ Sci Policy. 2014;37:101–120.10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai C, Fahimnia B, Sarkis J. Sustainable transport fleet appraisal using a hybrid multi-objective decision making approach. Ann Oper Res. 2015;1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Pira M, Inturri G, Ignaccolo M, et al. Analysis of AHP Methods and the Pairwise Majority Rule (PMR) for collective preference rankings of sustainable mobility solutions. Transp Res Procedia. 2015;10:777–787.10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.031
   Google Scholar
• Curiel-Esparza J, Mazario-Diez JL, Canto-Perello J, et al. Prioritization by consensus of enhancements for sustainable mobility in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;55(1):248–257.10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng JY, Tzeng GH. Fuzzy multicriteria ranking of urban transportation investment alternatives. Transp Planning Technol. 1996;20(1):15–31.10.1080/03081069608717577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avineri E, Praskker J, Ceder A. Transportation projects selection process using fuzzy sets theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000;116:35–47.10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00036-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konti A, Damigos D. Exploring strengths and weaknesses of bioethanol production from bio-waste in Greece using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Energy Policy. 2018;112:4–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrycz W. Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1994;64:21–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klir GR, Yuan B. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic theory and applications. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Yong D. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2006;28(7–8):839–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guine JB. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standard (p. 704), London: Kluwer Academic; 2002.
   Google Scholar